ALAMEDA COUNTY
In Alameda County, as in the Bay Area as a whole, bicycling
represents a small, but growing, share of all trips. The bike mode
share, the percent of travel undertaken by bicycle, in Alameda
County (2.0%) is greater than that of the nine Bay Area counties
as a whole (1.4%).
Source: BATS2000 79% 11% 7% 2% 1% 82% 10% 1% 2% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Auto Walk Transit Bicycle Other Alameda County Bay Area
ALAMED A C TC Figu re 7-2 Countywide Bicy cle Plan 2006
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bicycling In Alameda County
It appears that bicycling in Alameda County is on the rise. The U.S. Census, for example, indicates that commuting by bicycle has increased by approximately 20% since 2000. Although the share of cycling trips is small in comparison to overall travel, the absolute number is quite high, making bicycling an important and necessary travel mode. In 2000, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Bay Area Travel Survey
(BATS)1 estimated that approximately 593,000
bi-cycle trips were made every week in Alameda County, or almost 85,000 trips daily. It should be noted, however, that this number is conservative because BATS does not include bicycling (or walking) trips to or from transit; such trips are counted as transit trips. If biking trips to and from transit are included, the weekday number of bike trips in the county increases by almost 77,000; this includes 57,000 to AC Transit stops, 20,000 to BART stations, plus additional trips to the county’s other transit agencies.
Bicycling has become an important travel mode in Alameda County for a variety of reasons. First, Alameda County offers an increasingly robust and varied network of safe and accessible bicycling facili-ties that bicyclists can use for recreation, commuting, and daily activities. In the urban core of the North County, for example, cities like Berkeley and Oakland have substantially developed their bicycle networks in the form of bicycle facilities on key corridors, and Berkeley and Emeryville have a network of bicycle “boulevards” on neighborhood residential streets. Alameda County jurisdictions have also invested substantial resources into the development of the County’s regional bicycle and trail system. Regional facilities like the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail, and the Iron Horse Trail all provide world-class recreational bicycling, enhanced bicycle access to regional destinations, and key commuting connections. In Alameda County, these facilities are extremely well-utilized. For example, the highest share of existing (32%) and projected (28%) annual
trips on the Bay Trail are in Alameda County.2 Figure
7-2 shows the bicycling network in Alameda County
from the 2006 bike plan.3
In addition, bicycling in Alameda County is signifi-cantly enhanced by ongoing efforts to strengthen
1 BATS is a large-scale household travel behavior survey conducted by phone and mail across the nine-county Bay Area, most recently in 2000. BATS data was utilized to analyze bicycling and pedestrian travel because it provides much more detailed data than that of the U.S. Census.
2 The San Francisco Bay Trail Project Gap Analysis Study, ABAG (2005) 3 Map will be replaced when the 2010 update is available.
connections between the bicycling and transit
networks. Bicycling has been relatively well-integrated with existing transit systems in Alameda County through efforts such as the 2009 AC Transit Bicycle Parking Study, the Safe Routes to Transit grant pro-gram, and recent major expansions to BART’s bicycle infrastructure (e-lockers, bikestations, and modified rail cars). AC Transit, BART, and other transit opera-tors also all allow bicycles on their transit vehicles. Finally, Alameda County and local jurisdictions con-tinue to support investments in bicycling infrastructure with complementary policies and programs that encourage bicycling as a safe travel mode. Numerous cities, as well as the County, have prioritized their bi-cycle plans as a means to identify high-priority invest-ments. Programs like Safe Routes to School enhance access for youth by improving bicycling infrastructure near schools, while promotional activities like Bike to Work Day strive to make bicycling a more common commute mode.
The rest of this section takes a closer look at the specifics of bicycling in Alameda County, highlighting mode share and trip purpose, demographics of bicy-clists, trip distribution, and bicycle safety.
Mode Share and Trip Purpose
According to BATS, the breakdown of bicycle trips in Alameda County by trip purpose is as follows:
• Social/recreational (34%) • Work (19%)
• Shopping (19%) • School (9%)
• Non-home based (begin and end someplace other than home) (19%)
Figure 7-3 shows this breakdown.
Figure 7-3 Bike Trips By Purpose in Alameda County Source: BATS2000 Work 19% Shopping 19% Social/ Recreational 34% School 9% Non-home based 19%
2% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 0% 1%
Work Shopping Social/rec'n School Non-home based Figure 7-4 Bike Mode Share By Trip Purpose in
Alameda County
Source: BATS2000
Sources: 2000 Census and 2006-2008 ACS
* The 2006-2008 ACS does not provide data for Emeryville, Albany or Pied-mont. Figures for these cities are from 2000 only.
** The 2006-2008 figure cannot be determined without data from all the jurisdictions.
Figure 7-5 Commute-To-Work Bike Mode Share
1.3% 1.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.1% 1.5% 1.9% 6.6% 0.9% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% Bay Area Alameda County Hayward Newark Union City Dublin Fremont Piedmont San Leandro Unincorporated Alameda Livermore Emeryville Pleasanton Oakland Albany Berkeley 2000 2006-2008 * * * **
Although 2% of all trips countywide in 2000 were by bicycle, that share varied somewhat depending on the purpose of the trip. For instance, 3% of all social/ recreational trips were by bike. Conversely, only 1% of shopping trips were by bicycle, perhaps because shopping by bike requires panniers or other means of carrying purchases, which many cyclists do not own. The bicycle mode share for work, school and non-home-based trips was approximately the same as the overall county bike trip rate of 2% (see Figure 7-4). The American Community Survey (ACS) samples travel behavior (and other information) more fre-quently than the U.S. Census, but not in nearly as much
detail,4 including data on the mode share of
commute-to-work trips for each of the 15 local jurisdictions in the county (14 cities and the County’s unincorporated areas). Figure 7-5 shows the bike mode share in each jurisdiction.
According to ACS, overall, the bicycle commute share increased from 1.2% to 1.5% between 2000 and 2006-2008. Although this is still a small share of overall commuters, it represents a 21% increase in less than a decade, reflecting the growing popularity of bicycle transportation. Alameda County’s bike mode share of commute-to-work trips in the same period is slightly higher than the Bay Area’s as a whole (1.5% compared to 1.3%). Although many jurisdictions saw little change in their commute bike rate (or even a statistically insignificant decrease), the share of commuters who traveled by bike in at least three jurisdictions increased significantly; Berkeley (5.6% to 6.6%), Oakland
(1.2% to 1.9%), and Pleasanton (0.5% to 1.5%). This growth in biking mode share occurred concurrently with significant investments in support of bicycling such as bicycle safety education, creation of Bicycle Boulevards, and installation of bike parking.
4 ACS commuter bicycle rates are typically lower than BATS data due to a number of factors: rather than surveying work trips as BATS does, ACS asks commuters what their “typical” commute mode was the previous week. This methodology tends to undercount trips made by occasional bicycle commuters.
Demographics of Bicycle Riders
Bicycle riders are younger and more often male than the population as a whole. The income of bike commuters incomes varies widely and include many “choice riders” who could drive or take transit but prefer to bike. Rider demographics are summarized below.
Gender
In Alameda County, as in the U.S. as a whole, far fewer women bicycle than men. Women make only one third of all bicycling trips, or just under half as many as men. Women’s bike mode share (biking trips as a percent of all trips) is less than half that of men (0.9% versus 2.1%) (see Figure 7-6).
Age Distribution
As shown on Figure 7-7, younger populations have a higher bicycle mode share. The highest bicycle mode share in Alameda County is for the 18-22 age cohort at 11.3%. Not surprisingly, as people get older they typically use bicycles less often as a means of transportation, as evidenced by the fact that less than 4% of people over 65 years of age travel by bicycle. Clearly, bicycle mode share is directly correlated to physical ability and age, and no matter the facility type, the feasibility of bicycle travel declines as individuals get older.
Income
Bicycle ridership also varies by income level. In Alameda County, the highest mode shares for bicycle travel are in the “low” (less than $30,000) and the “high-medium” ($60,000-$100,000) quartiles. Households with the highest incomes bicycle the least, 1.1% of all trips made by these households. In relative terms, this is a significant difference: an Alameda County resident in the lowest-income group is more than 60% more likely to travel by bicycle on a given trip than someone in the highest-income group. This can partially be explained by lower vehicle ownership rates at low income levels, and the need to find alternative travel modes, whether it be solely by bicycle or using a bicycle to connect to transit services.
Figure 7-8 also shows that as the bicycle mode share decreases with higher incomes, the raw number of bicycle trips per person per day does increase as income goes up. This is explained by the fact that the higher an individual’s income, the more total trips— regardless of mode—they tend to take.
Source: BATS2000
Figure 7-8 Bicycle Mode Share and Total Bicycle Trips per Person, By Household Income Level in Alameda County 1.8% 3 4 3 5 4.0 1.8% 2.0% 1.5% 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.5 1.4% 1.6% es) 1.2% 1.1% 2 0 2.5 1 0% 1.2% 4 y ( Al l M od f A ll T rip s 1.5 2.0 0 6% 0.8% 1.0% ps per D ay Shar e o f 0.5 1.0 0.4% 0.6% Tr i 0.0 0.5 0.0% 0.2%
Low (<$30K) Low-med High-med High ($100K+) Low (<$30K) Low med
($30K-$60K) ($60K-100K)High med High ($100K+)
Source: BATS2000
Figure 7-6 Bike Mode Share By Gender
Share of all
biking trips Share of the population Bike mode share
Women 33% 51% 0.9% Men 67% 49% 2.1% 0.4% 4.7% 10.9% 6.9% 5.9% 5.7% 5.2% 3.9% 11.3% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 0-4 5-17 18-22 23-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-64 65+ Figure 7-7 Bike Mode Share By Age Group in
Alameda County
Activity Centers
Although biking and walking do have different facility needs and travel characteristics, bicycle and pedes-trian activity centers tend to be similar. For example, biking and walking both offer crucial connections to transit, and, as a result, transit stations are major trip attractors for both. In addition, biking and walking are especially appropriate for certain population segments, such as youth. Consequently, schools are one of Alameda County’s major biking and walking activity centers. For a more detailed discussion of activity centers and trip generators for bicyclists and pedestrians, see Chapter 8 on pedestrian travel.
Trip Distribution
As shown in Figure 7-9, a full three quarters of all bicycle trips in the county are in North County, well over its population share of 42%. Fewer Central and South County residents are bicycling. Those areas account for almost 50% of the population but only 13% of the county’s bike trips.
Not only are more bicycle trips taken in North
County, but the Albany-Berkeley-Oakland-Emeryville-Piedmont-Alameda region also has the highest bicycling rate at 3% of all trips. Because bicycle trips tend to be relatively short, in terms of both time and distance, it makes sense that biking is more prevalent in the denser North County. As shown in Figure 7-10, nationally, almost 60% of bike trips are under 15 minutes (roughly 3 miles), while only 7% of bike trips are over an hour (12 miles). This data underscores the feasibility of bicycling to replace short car trips of approximately 5 miles and less.
Bicycle Safety
Collisions, fatalities and injuries
Over the past eight years, an average of 581 bicyclists per year were involved in traffic collisions in Alameda County, with an average of just under three fatalities per year. Since 2001, between one and five people have been killed per year while riding bicycles in Alameda County. (See Figure 7-11) The number of annual bicycle injuries remained relatively stable between 2001 and 2007, fluctuating within a narrow range between 500 and 600. While the cause of the 2008 spike in collisions involving bicyclists is uncer-tain, the $4/gallon gasoline that year that prompted many non-cyclists to try cycling for transportation for the first time may have been at least partially respon-sible. Between 2000 and 2008, bicyclists made up 2.4% of all traffic fatalities in Alameda County; 20% higher than the county’s bike mode share (2.0%).
42% 22% 12% 13% 25% 75% 5% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
North Central South East
Share of county population Share of bicycling trips Figure 7-9 Share of Bicycle Travel in Alameda
County Compared with Share of Population by Planning Area
Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2009
Figure 7-10 Duration of Biking Trips, Nationwide
Minutes Approx. distance (miles) of trips by bikePercent
0-5 0-0.25 10.50% 5.1-10 0.25-0.5 26.90% 10.1-15 0.5-0.75 21.10% 15.1-20 0.75-1 12.20% 20.1-25 1-1.25 2.50% 25.1-30 1.25-1.5 12.50% 30.1-45 1.5-2.25 7.80% 45.1-60 2.25-3 1.60% >60 >3 4.90%
Most motor vehicle/bicycle collisions in Alameda County occur between central Berkeley and downtown Oakland. However, Figure 7-12 shows that North County has a much lower share of the county’s colli-sions than of bike trips (58% of bike collicolli-sions but 75% of bike trips). Central and South County have higher proportional shares of collisions than bicycle trips, while East County has an equal share of each. A better way of analyzing the relative safety of each planning area in Alameda County is by comparing collisions per 100 bicycle trips. This is illustrated in Figure 7-13. North County, while having the highest share of bicycle collisions, has the fewest collisions per 100 bike trips at 3. Although it has a small share of the county’s collisions, Central County has the most colli-sions per 100 bike commuters, 15, a rate five times that of North County.
536 506 554 737 574 568 593 579 5 3 3 3 2 2 4 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Bicy cle c ollisions 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bicy cle f at alities
Figure 7-11 Bicycle Collisions and Fatalities in Alameda County
Source: SWITRS
Figure 7-12 Share Of Bicycle Collisions, Population and Bike Trips By Planning Area
Sources; SWITRS, 2000 Census, 2006-2008 ACS
18% 11% 13% 75% 5% 13% 58% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
North Central South East
Share of bike collisions Share of bike trips Sources; SWITRS, 2000 Census, 2006-2008 ACS
0.57 0.17 0.11 0.13 3.18 15.39 5.75 4.27 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
North Central South East
Shar e of Bik e C ollisions 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Collisions per 1 00 Bik e T rips
Figure 7-13 Share of Bicycle Collisions and Collisions Per 100 Bike Trips
Alameda Creek Regional Trail
The Alameda Creek Trail follows the historic course of Alameda Creek for twelve miles between the Fremont foothills and the San Francisco Bay and the Bay Trail. This continuous multi-use path also passes by Newark and Union City.
The San Francisco Bay Trail
The Bay Trail is managed by the Association of Bay Area Governments and will be a continuous 500-mile bicycling and hiking path around San Francisco Bay, including 119 miles along the Alameda County shoreline (called the “spine”), and another 65 miles connecting the Bay Trail to other trails, transit, local destinations, and points of interest along the waterfront. Estimates state that it will take up to 15 years to complete the trail through Alameda County. Once completed, the Bay Trail will stretch uninterrupted from the Albany Bulb, past the Berkeley Marina, Eastshore State Park, and the Emeryville Marina, provide access to the pathway on the new east span of the Bay Bridge, travel through Jack London Square, along Crown Memorial State Beach in Alameda, by the San Leandro Marina and the Hayward Regional Shoreline, through Union City, across Alameda Creek, past Ardenwood Historic Farm in Fremont and into the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Bay Trail plans include provid-ing connections to regional transit centers whenever possible, including the Coliseum and El Cerrito Plaza BART stations in Alameda County.
Ohlone Greenway
The Ohlone Greenway is maintained by the local jurisdictions through which it passes and runs from near downtown Berkeley, past the North Berkeley BART station, through Albany, to just past the El Cerrito del Norte BART station, with planned links to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The Trail was built on BART property after construction of the Richmond BART line and consists of separate walking and bicycle paths through much of its length.
East Bay Greenway
The East Bay Greenway is a proposed 12-mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway that would extend from 18th Avenue in Oakland south to the Hayward BART station. The proposed alignment would predominantly follow the elevated BART tracks that run through this cor-ridor, similar to how the Ohlone Greenway was devel-oped in north Berkeley, Albany and El Cerrito (Contra Costa County). The design of East Bay Greenway is still be finalized and various regional agencies are currently working to secure funding for this project.
Facilities
On- and off-street network
The most prominent and conspicuous element of any jurisdiction’s bicycle facilities is its network of lanes, routes, bike boulevards, or off-street paths, These facilities are the traditional backbone of bicycle facility investment, as they serve to not only provide bicyclists with the physical space in which they need to ride, but also guide bicyclists to streets and paths that offer the most safe, convenient, and accessible routes to key destinations. While the breadth and depth of bicycle infrastructure invest-ment varies, most jurisdictions in Alameda County have made significant strides in the past decade developing their bicycle networks. In fact, cities like Berkeley and Oakland have pioneered many of the national best practices in facility development, such as bicycle boulevards.
Furthermore, 14 jurisdictions had either completed or were in the process of completing a bicycle plan. These plans serve as the framework for the develop-ment of a bicycle network, and will guide future investment in each jurisdiction’s bicycle network. Finally, the network of Class I bicycle paths through-out Alameda County continues to serve as a national model. The major trail systems in Alameda County include the East Bay Regional Park District’s extensive trail network, including the Iron Horse Trail in the East planning area, and the Alameda Creek Regional Trail between Fremont and the Bay; and the San Francisco Bay Trail. In addition to an abundance of countywide and inter-jurisdictional trails, Alameda County has many miles of local trails. Outlined below are some of the primary paved trails that travel through and link urbanized areas in Alameda County.
East Bay Regional Park District Trails East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is a
California-designated special district, which operates and maintains 175 miles of trails in Alameda County, 48 of which are paved. Additionally, the District has identified 91 additional trail miles in Alameda County in its 2007 Master Plan for future construction. Iron Horse Trail
The Iron Horse Trail—built along the alignment of an abandoned railroad right-of-way—travels through central Contra Costa County and the Tri-Valley area, through Dublin to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. EBRPD has plans to extend the Trail south through Pleasanton and east through Livermore, eventually to the San Joaquin County border.
Physical barriers and connectivity gaps Some of the most common reasons people do not bike—including lack of facilities, concerns about traffic safety and long distances—are at least partly related to the existence of physical barriers or con-nectivity gaps. Below is a list of significant barriers in Alameda County mentioned by local jurisdictions in a 2010 questionnaire.
Physical Barriers
Automobile and rail infrastructure—highways, railroads and interchanges—create a majority of the physical barriers in the existing bicycle network throughout Alameda County:
North County
• Interstates 80, 580 and 880 • State Routes 24 and 13
• Railroad tracks in Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland
• Freeway and railroad crossings (especially the Gilman Street interchange)
Central County
• Interstates 580 and 880 • Railroad tracks
• San Leandro (I-880 interchanges at Davis Street, Marina Boulevard and Washington Avenue; and the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Subdivision underpasses on Washington Avenue and San Leandro Boulevard)
South County
• Interstates 880 and State Route 84 • Union Pacific railroad tracks
East County
• Interstates 580 and 680 Connectivity Gaps
Connectivity gaps refer to missing connections or segments along bicycle routes, including multi-use paths and on-street facilities. Major connectivity gaps in Alameda County cited by local jurisdictions include:
North County
• San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge • Lake Merritt channel (Oakland) • Oakland Estuary waterfront (Oakland)
Central County
• Bay Trail gap between south Fremont Boulevard and Dixon Landing Road (Fremont)
South County
• Creeks and canals
East County
• Along the Iron Horse Trail crossing Santa Rita Road, the intersection of Stanley Boulevard at Valley and Bernal avenues (Pleasanton) • Arroyo Mocho Creek at Stoneridge
Drive (Pleasanton)
• Intersection of the Alamo Canal and Tassajara Creek trails and I-580 (Dublin)
While bikeways are the central element of a bicycle network, they are not the only component. Outlined below are several kinds of support facilities—namely bicycle parking, showers and lockers, and signage—that increase the utility of the bicycle network and promote the viability of bicycling as a transportation mode. Bicycle parking
• Six cities have bicycle parking ordinances: Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Pleasanton and Union City. Several other jurisdictions have imposed parking conditions for certain projects as part of the development-approval process.
• Oakland’s bike parking ordinance requires attended bike parking at certain large events.
• Oakland has a bicycle-rack installation program, although most other jurisdictions have installed racks in public places on a case-by-case basis. In addition, Oakland provides technical support to businesses that wish to install bicycle parking on their property.
• Almost all jurisdictions have installed at least some bicycle racks: seven have single-use bicycle lockers; Oakland and Fremont have shared-use electronic lockers (eLockers); Oakland, Emeryville and San Leandro have secured bike-parking cages; and Emeryville has an indoor bike room.
• BART provides racks at all its stations in Alameda County and lockers at all stations except 12th Street/Oakland City Center, 19th Street/Oakland and Downtown Berkeley. In addition, there are two bike stations, one at Downtown Berkeley (268 spaces) and the other at Fruitvale (250 spaces). Berkeley also has a new electronic card-controlled Bikestation at Ashby BART.
• Berkeley also has shared use e-lockers at the Capitol Corridor Rail Stop.
Showers and lockers
• Oakland has an ordinance requiring shower and locker facilities as part of certain new develop-ment projects. Pleasanton and San Leandro have occasionally required these facilities on a case-by-case basis, as part of the development-approval process. UC Berkeley has a policy to include them in all new buildings beyond a certain size.
Wayfinding signage
• Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville have bike-route signage programs.
• Berkeley and Emeryville install bicycle boulevards signage with wayfinding and mileage information. • Local agencies and the East Bay Regional Park
District also place signage along inter-jurisdictional trails, such as the Bay Trail and Iron Horse Trail.
Planning, Support Programs and Advocacy
Local planning efforts
Bicycle plans at the local level are important because it is local jurisdictions that are responsible for plan-ning, desigplan-ning, constructing and maintaining bicycle facilities. In 2010, 14 jurisdictions either completed a bicycle plan or had one underway, up from ten in 2006, demonstrating the effectiveness of Alameda CTC’s efforts to support local bicycle planning efforts with Measure B grant funding. In addition, the Alameda CTC is currently updating the 2006 Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. The updated plan will reflect current bicycling trends and needs, identify project and program priorities, as well as provide a framework for the allocation of funds. The update process began in May of 2010 and the final plan is scheduled to be approved by the Alameda CTC Board in March of 2012. This Countywide Bicycle Plan update will be coordinated with the Countywide Transportation Plan and the bike projects and programs that are identified will be incorporated or referenced in the Countywide Transportation Plan. Local support programs
The focus in bicycle planning is often on building capital projects. However, support programs are also important because they increase the safety and utility
of those projects. Local jurisdictions in Alameda
County administer a broad range of bicycle support programs to complement their infrastructure-build-ing efforts. These programs may be grouped under the categories of safety, law enforcement, education, promotion or encouragement, safe routes to school and traffic-calming. Below is a summary of jurisdic-tions now sponsoring various types of programs:
Safety
• Bicycle Audit: San Leandro
• Bicycle Safety Education Campaign: Albany,
Berkeley, Dublin, Fremont, Pleasanton and San Leandro
Law enforcement
• Bicycle/pedestrian traffic safety officers:
Alameda County
• Pedestrian/bicycle enforcement activities: Eight
jurisdictions Education
• Inform motorists on bicycle/pedestrian laws:
Albany, Dublin and San Leandro
• Traffic curriculum (schools, community
centers): Albany, Fremont, Dublin and San Leandro
Promotion/encouragement
• Bike to Work Day: Eleven jurisdictions
• Bicycle races: Alameda County, Albany, Emeryville
and Fremont
• Giveaways: More than half of jurisdictions give
away bicycle-related items such as helmets, lights, reflectors and water bottles
• Bike maps: All except Alameda County, Newark,
Piedmont and Union City Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
• Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland and San Leandro have applied for and received grant fund-ing for SR2S programs; Pleasanton, Livermore and Union City applied for funding but did not receive it • Alameda County, Albany, Berkeley, Hayward,
Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont and San Leandro participate in the countywide SR2S program through TransForm
• Newark and Emeryville do not have SR2S pro-grams in their schools
Traffic calming
• Five jurisdictions (Berkeley, Emeryville, Newark, Pleasanton and San Leandro) have a substantial traffic-calming program, with a dedicated funding source
• Five jurisdictions (Alameda County, Albany, Fremont, Livermore and Oakland) have a traffic-calming program but with no dedicated funding source
Countywide support programs
In addition to the local programs, there are four multi-jurisdictional support programs of note:
• Measure B is a countywide half-cent sales tax that funds transportation projects, programs and plans throughout Alameda County. Five percent of Measure B revenue is earmarked for bicycle and pedestrian activities, of which 75% is directly programmed by the county’s 15 jurisdictions and the remaining 25% is allocated by Alameda CTC at their discretion.
• Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Alameda County Partnership (www.transformca.org/sr2s). This program reaches students at more than 60 public elementary schools. It is led by TransForm, a local non-profit dedicated to improving transit and creating walkable communities.
• Bicycle safety classes for all ages, offered on a regular basis by both the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and BikeAlameda.
• Bike to Work Day has grown significantly in recent years. In 2008-2010, it was supported by a “lifestyle” advertising campaign under the tagline, “Get Rolling.” Alameda County Transportation Commission has provided significant funding and leadership to expand Bike to Work Day in recent years.
Advocacy efforts
Bicycle advocacy seeks to encourage government to improve the bicycling environment and to encourage more people to bike more often. Bicycle advocacy has surged nationwide, particularly in the Bay Area. Alameda County has five bicycle advocacy groups:
• East Bay Bicycle Coalition (www.ebbc.org) • Walk Oakland, Bike Oakland
(www.walkoakland-bikeoakland.org)
• Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition (www.bfbc.org) • BikeAlameda (www.bikealameda.org)
• Albany Strollers and Rollers (www.bfbc.org) In addition, bicycle or bicycle/pedestrian advisory committees advise government agencies on bicy-cling and walking issues in several cities (Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville and Fremont) and at Alameda CTC and BART.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
The importance of biking facilities will only continue to increase in Alameda County. Projected demo-graphic trends and policy mandates will increase the amount of urban land uses that are more conducive
to short biking and walking trips. Such trends will make addressing these needs more and more impor-tant. Furthermore, the growing need to address rising energy costs and climate change will only continue to shift demand to modes that are sustainable, healthy, and cost-effective. Alameda County and each jurisdiction within its boundaries will need to continue to monitor these trends and identify areas where investments in bicycling should be prioritized to further encourage bicycle use. For example, Priority Development Areas (PDAs), slated to accom-modate up to half of the Bay Area’s projected housing growth in compact, more dense infill development, are strong candidates for channeling future invest-ments in pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure. Such investments will complement these land uses, while increasing the reach and impact of adjacent transit services.
SUMMARY OF NEEDS
Almost every local jurisdiction cites lack of funding as a major barrier to making bicycle improvements. Based on a 2010 online survey of all 15 Alameda County jurisdictions, conducted during the develop-ment of the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan, the following is a sampling of bicycling needs in the County. This list is by no means comprehensive, but gives a sense of the scale of need for these modes. Readers should refer to the Countywide Bicycle Plan which is currently under development and is sched-uled to be released in March 2012 for a complete index of all identified bicycle needs in the County.
• Dublin: $4.2 million for projects in the Bikeways Master Plan
• Emeryville: $5 million for bicycle improvements identified in their Capital Improvement Program, $10 million for I-80 bike-pedestrian bridge, and $13 million for future bike-pedestrian bridges • Fremont: $42 million, for both bicycle and
pedes-trian projects
• Newark: Approximately $4 million for both bicycle and pedestrian projects
• Oakland: $27 million for projects in the Bicycle Master Plan and $8 million for a bicycle/pedes-trian bridge over Lake Merritt Channel.
• Pleasanton: $29.7 million for bicycle projects in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
• San Leandro: $23.2 million for both bicycle and pedestrian projects in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Union City: $6 million (for lane reconfiguration on Union City Boulevard)